Would you sacrifice someone you care about for others?

Thanks. Just a question, did you or do you have a military background?

Much in theory, less than I'd like in practice. My deployment was cut short. Luckily I've never had to make a choice as referenced above though. It would have jaded me forever.

EDIT: Before I forget: thanks for the +rep, Kitten.

Out in the field, its hard not to keep straighface, and make good judgement. Insurgents, casualties, it gets to you doesn't? Just asking.

Edit: OT

In honesty, I'd rather not talk about I've done over there. Suffice to say it hurts to suspect everyone you see of the most atrocious acts imaginable.

That said, I believe this topic has been de-railed enough.

I think I'll retire to the writing sub-forum.

EDIT: I've cleared my psych-eval, thanks. Being a Corpsman for Recon isn't exactly simple stuff, though. When something happens where I'm needed, then shit has really hit the fan.

let me ask you a question, your wife and her newborn son are hanging from a rope, a old lady and a middle aged man are hanging from another rope, now you only have time to save one couple, which one do you rush for? the millitary senario doesnt work for me because of all the training and mental conditioning you will respond how THEY want you to respond no matter the instance,im not saying be unnessisarily heartless but protect your family first, yourself second, and then worry about the rest of the world. but i guess thats why i would never be right for millitary or police work.

I think Jericho would use this as the answer



True, it depends on every individual. Most people would of course choose their loved ones but a handful of people would think like a machine, save many and sacrifice a few.

What if instead of the older couple, it's a group of kindergarteners on the other end of the rope? If you could save a thousand lives by killing your own loved one, would you do it?
It's all about whether or not you choose to act out of your feelings of attachment to one of the possible victims in your decision-making, or righteousness.

in all honesty im still saving my family first, you consider that unrighteous? in that sitiuation a group of people are gonna die weather its the children or my wife and kids i just made the best possible decison based on the love for my family how is that unrighteous?

In all honesty? Yeah, it is. You are putting your emotional investment of a few over the lives of many. Just because you love your family, doesn't make all your actions to protect said family "good". Good for _you_, but bad for everyone else, which is how almost everyone would define "selfish." Love doesn't make your decision right.


I'd save the people whom I love, but I have no illusions about it not being a selfish/unrighteous/evil act -- saving the people I love over a thousand others is a very, very self-serving act.

what if it were my wife and child and 18 of my cousins on one bus and a bus load of preschoolers on another do equal numbers make the act of saving your family first any different, i think that it is bullshit you are gonna be selfish either way, if i save 10,000 lives but let 3 of my family members die because of it arent i being selfish to the three members of my family putting my want to save others before my family... the numbers dont matter.

Fine, practicality. There are different paths to righteousness, and I was just referring to that trail of righteousness in which the person chooses to share his feeling of responsibility between the two groups of people equally, even if their levels of importance to the person is not.
I did not try to attack your point of view, I'm just saying that neither answer is wrong.

let me put it to you like this in case you dont get what im getting at.

say my newborn dauugter has the cure for canser in her DNA, now they will have to kill her to get that cure to the public, if i agree to this i am saving millions of lives, but my daughter will never have the chance to live her life, find her own path, make her own decisions, iv taken that from her killed her she is dead. you wouldnt consider that being selfish?

What?
It does show the pragmatism in most people, if anything.
Your social immediate neighbours ("loved ones") are doing more for you than thousands of unknown strangers ever will.
Picking the survival of your loved ones over some random strangers is pragmatic as hell. Not popular, not heroic by the standards of military pathos, but pragmatic.

I think I may have used the wrong word. That's what I get for not confirming definitions.

I suppose a better thing to say is that most people are not very high on Robert Keagan's Scale, in the sense that they do not think about the larger picture. Every person willingly condemned by you for the sake of one person that you feel an attachment to have lives of their own, and have a complete existence unto themselves. Not only are you disregarding the acceptance of their existence, but you are snuffing out the very thing that you are being intentionally ignorant of.

You are acting on an "Imperial" level of thinking, rather than an "Interpersonal" level. You are saving the person you know because you need them. You don't need the strangers and are simultaneously ignoring their needs.

A new point of focus, though, is the reaction of the loved one you save, should you chose to do so. Would they still love you if they know they were the cause of so many deaths? I hardly think they would react well to your decision, as they also now have to live with those deaths on their hands. You are condemning them as much as yourself to mental turmoil and PTSD for an unknown length of time.

you make it sound as if the person making the decision is being heartless and doesnt care about anyone else besides the people closest to him and that is not the case in a situation like that a choice has to be made someone is gonna be sacrificed, there is no happy end to this shit, i dont "need" the person im saving, they need me, my child needs a mother my wife needs her child, i would be lying if i said that i on some level didnt need them as well thats what influences you to make that decision, I asked my wife what would she want me to do in that ituation and she was on the same page i am "fam comes first", i think it is far more heartless to watch you loved ones die knowing you could have done something to save them that to me would be much harder to live with but like i said there is no happy endings to that senario

No.

Don't need to get all heated up over this question, you guys. From my perspective, it's most commonly expected of a person to choose his or her loved ones over others. However, I believe that when a person ends up choosing the larger group of lives that only he or she has the power to save, that person deserves more praise for making such a difficult and most possibly a traumatic decision, that--again, in my own opinion--outweighs that of the people who chose to save their loved ones.

Some may label such people as thinking like 'machines' but since they are still human, you cannot accuse them of not being able to feel a pang of regret when they do make such decisions.

By the way, I appreciate people making analogies to fit with that of the question, but I hope you won't make analogies in which you obviously have more to gain by your intended decision. It just weakens your argument that way.

Whence you infer this, I have no idea.



I'm well aware, it just doesn't move me one furlough.



And this is bad how?



I don't see what's wrong with that. That is what enables us humans to survive. Were you to be bothered by other people's needs, your only logical choice would be immediate suicide, because your very existence is SHATTERING THE NEEDS OF BILLIONS OF PEOPLE.
Africans suffer and die for your drinking water, your cellphone and your car. Chinese suffer and die die for your paint. Indians die and suffer for your food and clothing. South Americans suffer and die for your furniture. Should I keep going?



wrong! In my personal case, I know them to be perfectly of one mind with me. Thus, loved ones.

That comparison is a fallacy, though. Even if I personally completely cut myself off from such things and became self-sufficient, all those people would still suffer. In this particular situation I would have direct control over their life or death. I would be the arbiter of their fate, instead of one of hundreds of millions that purchase something that is produced at the cost of lives in a region half a world away.

Not to say that I don't care about the turmoil in less developed countries, but having the direct influence makes a lot of a difference.